Appeal No. 2001-0888 Page 8
Application No. 08/790,559
to believe, whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference or that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In making his argument, the appellant contends an artisan would have bodily
incorporated VonVolkli's vacuum feature into the method/structure of Darrieux to
thereby yield the useless result of an inoperable vacuum system. This not the test for
obviousness. Id. Moreover, such a contention presumes stupidity rather than skill on
the artisan. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In
applying the correct test for obviousness, we (like the examiner) are led to the
conclusion that the combined teachings of Darrieux and VonVolkli would have
suggested to the artisan providing Darrieux's pressurized fluid system with a vacuum
feature in order to obtain the benefits taught by VonVolkli.
For these reasons and those expressed in the Answer, the § 103 rejection of
claims 33-36 and 59 as being unpatentable over Darrieux in view of VonVolkli also will
be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007